ÿWPC÷ …U:V %b–žn­® 04[w.—4Å 0xÙ 0DQ 0J• 0Tß 0^3 0h‘ 0rù 0|k 0†ç 0m 1uý U,r 0dž U,U>.B)lDC• AMØU*%"O D3qv~¤ B" 0@?vÓ AORÆ¡ 0Dg D/« BÚ<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTX- ù-3|xZ «<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@( ¤T$¡¡Ó  ÓK EL M EN EO P Ó€Z DÒ (((3Þ $¤¤Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌJuly€12,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó,,,,'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'` d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€##X„d&ÓÑ#€##Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€†ßXXdÖdÈ7ÑÑ€ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€$Ô›KATHERYN€MALLON€GUESS,à à€à à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)à àDavidson€CircuitÌà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à€€€)à àNo.€89D„4429Ìà àà àà àà à€€€à àà à€€€)€ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€ÌCAROL€WINFRED€(C.W.)€GUESS,€M.D.à à€€€)à àAppeal€No.€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)à à01A01„9601„CV„00048Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà àà à€€€)ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€')&;+'h|‚äT` ç `€€Lß›à àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÓ  ÓIN€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌ€AT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓ  ÓHONORABLE€MURIEL€ROBINSON,€JUDGEÌÓ  ÓÌÌMary€Francis€LyleÌBRUCE,€WEATHERS,€CORLEY,€DUGHMAN€&€LYLEÌNashville,€Tennessee€ÌATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,ÌÌÌJohn€W.€Nolan,€IIIÌMARY€ARLINE€EVANSÌNashville,€Tennessee€ÌATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌÌÌREMAND€ON€SUPPORTÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGE,ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGE,ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌKATHRYN€MALLON€GUESS,à à€€€à à€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà à€€€à à€€)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà à€€€à à€€)à à€€Ìà àà àà àà àà à€€€à à€€)€€Davidson€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà à€€€à à€€)€€No.€89D„4429Ìà àà àà àà àà à€€€à à€€)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à€€€à à€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà à€€€à à€€)€€Appeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà à€€€à à€€)€€01A01„9601„CV„00048Ì€CAROL€WINFRED€(C.W.)€GUESS,€M.D.à à€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà à€€€à à€€)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à à€€€à àà à€€)ÌÌÌÓ  Óò òòòO€€P€€I€€N€€I€€O€€Nóóó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àIn€this€post„divorce€proceeding,€the€Plaintiff„ex„wife„mother€has€appealed€from€anÏunsatisfactory€disposition€of€issues€between€the€parties€regarding€child€support€and€visitation.ÌÌà àOn€March€23,€1990,€the€parties€were€divorced€by€decree€which€incorporated€theirÏagreement€for€joint€custody,€visitation€and€support€for€one€female€child,€aged€3.ÌÌà àOn€June€18,€1991,€a€further€order€was€entered€providing€meticulous€details€of€visitationÏand€telephone€calls.€€ÌÌà àOn€July€1,€1994,€an€agreed€order€was€entered€modifying€visitation€and€increasing€childÍsupport€to€$1,309.00€per€month€in€conformity€with€guidelines€promulgated€by€the€Department€ofÏHuman€Services.ÌÌà àThe€present€proceeding€was€commenced€on€May€15,€œ1995,›€when€the€Father€petitioned€forÏenlarged€visitation€and€for€an€injunction€to€prevent€the€removal€of€the€child€from€Nashville,ÏTennessee.€€The€Mother€filed€an€answer€and€counter€petition€for€increase€in€child€support€andÏmodification€of€visitation.€€ÌÌà àThe€Trial€Court€entered€an€order€modifying€the€visitation€schedule€and€increasing€childÏsupport€to€$1,600€per€month€for€all€months€except€June€and€July€during€which€child€support€wasÏreduced€to€$1,000€per€month.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€mother€has€presented€three€issues,€of€which€the€first€œis:›ÌÓÓà àà à€€€€1.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€Husband€œÌà àà àvisitation€for›€all€of€June€(after€school€lets€out)€and€œJuly,›€œÌà àà àeffectively€precluding›€Wifeððs€chance€to€celebrate€her€œÌà àà àdaughterððs›€œbirthday€with›€her.ÌÓÓà àà àÌà àBoth€parties€have€remarried.€€The€Mother€resides€in€Springfield,€Missouri,€and€the€FatherÏresides€in€Gulfport,€Miss.€€Air€travel€between€these€two€cities€requires€from€3€hours€55€minutes€toÏ5€hours€5€minutes,€depending€upon€route€and€connections.ÌÌà àThe€latest€visitation€order€terminated€previous€alternate€week€end€visitation,€substituted€oneÏweek€end€per€month€during€September€through€May,€and€modified€summer€visitation€to€a€periodÏfrom€two€days€after€end€of€school€year€until€July€31.€€The€order€expressly€excluded€any€visitationÍduring€August.̛̜à àAs€to€birthday€visitation,€the€order€provided:ÌÓÓà àà à€€€€It€is€further€ORDERED,€ADJUDGED€and€DECREED€that€Ìà àà àthe€parties€shall€alternate€the€minor€childððs€June€birthday€so€that€Ìà àà àthe€Mother€can€go€where€the€child€is€and€in€one€year€she€can€Ìà àà àcelebrate€the€eve€before,€and€the€Father€celebrates€on€the€childððs€Ìà àà àbirthday;€and€in€alternate€years,€the€Father€celebrates€on€the€eve€Ìà àà àof€the€childððs€birthday€and€the€Mother€celebrates€on€the€birthday.€€Ìà àà àThis€shall€not€effect€(SIC)€The€Motherððs€middle€weekend€visitation€Ìà àà àduring€June€and€July.ÌÓÓÌà àThe€Mother€relies€upon€the€principle€of€òòres€judicaóó€to€resist€any€change€in€previous€visitationÏorders.€€The€best€ð ðinterest€of€the€child€overcomes€any€restraint€ofòò€res€judicaóó.€€ÌTCA€ðð€36„6„101(a)€authorizes€changes€in€custody€and€visitation€as€the€exigencies€of€the€case€mayÏrequire.ðð€€Exigencies€of€the€caseðð€includes€continuing€concern€for€the€welfare€of€the€child,òò€MaloneÏv.€Maloneóó,€Tenn€App.€1994,€844€S.W.2d€621.€€€Recognition€of€an€undesirable€effect€of€a€previousÏvisitation€order€is€such€an€exigency.ÌÌà àThe€alternate€week€end€visitation€at€such€great€distance€was€patently€a€strain€upon€a€child€ofÏtender€years,€and€needed€to€be€revised.€€The€summer€visitation,€involving€one€round€trip,€was€aÏsuitable€substitute€for€the€terminated€week€end€visits.ÌÌà àThe€Mother€œcomplains›€that€she€is€deprived€of€the€privilege€of€celebrating€the€childððsÏbirthday€at€her€home€in€Springfield,€but€is€required€to€travel€to€Gulfport€for€the€celebration.€€It€isÏregrettable€that€all€of€the€pleasures€of€a€unified€family€cannot€be€enjoyed€by€those€who€haveÏseparated€and€found€other€mates.€€However,€such€cannot€be€provided€by€human€means,€and€theÍparties€should€adjust€themselves€to€this€reality.ÌÌà àThere€is€no€reason€why€this€child€should€not€enjoy€two€birthday€celebrations€„€one€in€JuneÏwith€her€Father€and€another€in€August€with€her€Mother.€€ÌÌà àNo€error€is€found€in€the€schedule€of€summer€visitation.€€ÌÌà àThe€second€issue€presented€by€the€Mother€is:ÌÓÓà àà à€€€€2.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€requiring€child€visitationÌà àà àto€be€routed€through€Nashville,€although€one€party€lives€inÌà àà àsouth€western€Missouri€and€the€other€in€southern€Mississippi.ÌÌà àà à€€€€ÌÓÓà àThe€order€of€the€Trial€Court€provides:ÌÓÓà àà à€€€€The€Father,€Carol€W.€Guess,€M.D.,€shall€have€visitation€Ìà àà àwith€the€one€(1)€minor€child€of€the€parties€on€the€third€(3rd)€Ìà àà àweekend€of€each€month,€from€September€through€May€each€Ìà àà àyear,€when€the€minor€child€shall€fly€from€her€new€home€in€Ìà àà àSpringfield,€Missouri€to€Nashville,€Tennessee,€at€the€Fatherððs€Ìà àà àexpense.€€If€the€Mother€elects€to€fly€with€the€minor€child,€or€Ìà àà àhave€someone€fly€with€her,€that€shall€be€at€the€Motherððs€expense.€€Ìà àà àThe€Father€or€his€agent€shall€pick€up€the€minor€child€in€Nashville€Ìà àà àand€he€can€go€to€Mississippi€or€Kentucky€or€wherever€his€plansÌà àà àare.ÌÓÓÌà àThe€Mother€complains€that€routing€the€child€through€Nashville€entails€a€change€of€planesÏand€a€longer€travel€time€between€Springfield€and€Gulfport.€€The€routing€through€NashvilleÏcontemplated€that€the€Father€would€meet€the€child€in€Nashville€and€thereafter€take€her€to€his€homeÏin€Gulfport€by€air€or€automobile€or€travel€with€her€to€Kentucky€for€a€visit€with€his€parents.€€NoÏerror€is€found€in€permitting€this€travel€arrangement€which€does€not€exclude€other€reasonable€travelÍarrangements€which€may€be€agreed€upon€by€the€parties.ÌÌà àThe€third€and€last€issue€presented€by€the€Mother€is:ÌÓÓà àà à€€€€3.€€Whether€the€court€erred€in€capping€child€support€at€$1,600€Ìà àà àper€month€for€ten€months€and€$1,000€per€month€for€two€months,€Ìà àà àwhen€the€Fatherððs€salary€exceeds€$240,000€annually.€ÌÌÌà àTCA€ðð€36„5„101(e)(1)(2)€and€(3)€provides€in€part€as€follows:ÌÌà àà à€€€€(e)(1)€In€making€its€determination€concerning€the€amountÌà àà à€of€support€of€any€minor€child€or€children€of€the€parties,€the€Ìà àà àcourt€shall€apply€as€a€rebuttable€presumption€the€child€support€Ìà àà àguidelines€as€provided€in€this€subsection.€€If€the€court€finds€Ìà àà àthat€evidence€is€sufficient€to€rebut€this€presumption,€the€court€Ìà àà àshall€make€a€written€finding€that€the€application€of€the€child€Ìà àà àsupport€guidelines€would€be€unjust€or€inappropriate€in€that€Ìà àà àparticular€case,€in€order€to€provide€for€the€best€interest€of€the€Ìà àà àchild(ren)€or€the€equity€between€the€parties.€€Findings€that€the€Ìà àà àapplication€of€the€guidelines€would€be€unjust€or€inappropriate€Ìà àà àshall€state€the€amount€of€support€that€would€have€been€ordered€Ìà àà àunder€the€child€support€guidelines€and€a€justification€for€the€Ìà àà àvariance€from€the€guidelines.ÌÌà àà à€€€€(2)€Beginning€October€13,€1989,€the€child€support€guidelinesÌà àà à€promulgated€by€the€department€pursuant€to€the€rulemaking€Ìà àà àprovisions€of€the€Uniform€Administrative€Procedures€Act,€Ìà àà àcompiled€in€title€4,€chapter€5,€shall€be€the€guidelines€that€Ìà àà àcourts€shall€apply€as€a€rebuttable€presumption€in€child€Ìà àà àsupport€cases.ÌÌà àà à€€€€(3)€Child€support€guidelines€shall€be€reviewed€at€least€Ìà àà àevery€four€(4)€years€from€the€date€of€promulgation€and€Ìà àà àrevised,€if€necessary,€to€ensure€that€the€application€of€the€Ìà àà àguidelines€results€in€the€determination€of€appropriate€child€Ìà àà àsupport€award€amounts.ÌÌÌà àPrior€to€December,€1984,€the€guidelines€read€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:ÌÌà àà à€€€€(8)€These€guidelines€shall€be€applied€as€a€rebuttable€Ìà àà àpresumption€in€all€child€support€cases€beginning€October€13,€Ìà àà à1989.€€If€the€court€finds€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€rebut€Ìà àà àthe€presumption€that€the€application€of€the€guidelines€is€the€Ìà àà àcorrect€amount€to€be€awarded,€then€the€court€must€make€a€Ìà àà àwritten€finding€that€the€application€of€the€child€support€Ìà àà àguidelines€would€be€unjust€or€inappropriate€in€that€particular€Ìà àà àcase.ÌÌà àà à€€€€(1)€€For€clarity,€the€parent€with€whom€the€child(ren)€live€Ìà àà àprimarily€will€be€referred€to€as€the€obligee€and€the€parent€Ìà àà àwith€whom€the€child(ren)€do€not€primarily€live€will€be€referred€Ìà àà àto€as€the€obligor.ÌÌà àà à€€€€(2)€€€The€child€support€award€is€based€on€a€flat€percentage€Ìà àà àof€the€net€income€(as€defined€in€paragraph€4€below)€of€the€Ìà àà àobligor€depending€on€the€number€of€children€to€be€supported.€€Ìà àà àThis€formula€presumes€that€the€obligee€will€be€expending€at€Ìà àà àleast€an€equal€percentage€of€net€income€for€the€support€of€Ìà àà àchildren€from€whom€support€is€sought.Ìà àà àÌÌà àà à€€€€(5)à àAfter€determining€the€net€income€of€the€obligor,€that€Ìà àà àamount€is€to€be€round€up€to€the€next€dollar.€€That€amount€is€Ìà àà àthen€multiplied€by€the€percentage€below€that€corresponds€to€Ìà àà àthe€number€of€children€to€be€supported.€€The€percentages€are:ÌÌà àà à€€€€#€of€childrenà à1à à„à à„à à„Ìà àà à€€€€#€of€incomeà àà à21%à à„à à„à à„ÌÌà àà à€€€€After€this€calculation€is€made,€if€there€are€no€additions€to€Ìà àà àbe€made€pursuant€to€paragraph€1240„2„4„.04€below,€then€this€Ìà àà àis€the€amount€of€the€child€support€award.ÌÌà àà à€€€€(2)€There€are€other€cases€where€guidelines€are€neither€Ìà àà àappropriate€nor€equitable€when€a€court€so€finds.€€GuidelinesÌà àà àare€inappropriate€in€cases€including€but€not€limited€to,€the€Ìà àà àfollowing:ÌÌÌà àà à(a)à àIn€cases€where€the€net€income€of€the€obligor€as€calculatedÌà àà àà àIn€the€above€rule€exceeds€$6,250€per€month.€€These€casesÌà àà àà àòòmayóó€require€such€things€as€the€establishment€of€educationalÌà àà àà àOr€other€trust€funds€for€the€benefit€of€the€child(ren)€or€other€Ìà àà àà àprovisions€as€òòmayóó€be€determined€by€the€court.€€(Emphasis€Ìà àà àà àsupplied)€ÌÓÓÌà àOn€January€19,€1993,€the€Supreme€Court€announced€its€decision€in€the€case€ofòò€Nash€v.ÏMulle,óó€Tenn€1993,€846€S.W.2d€803€wherein€the€Court€held:ÌÓÓà àà à€€€€Among€the€ð ðunique€casesðð€specifically€anticipated€in€the€Ìà àà àguidelines€are€those€cases€in€which€the€income€of€the€parentÌà àà àpaying€support€exceeds€$6,250.00€per€month.ðð€€In€the€criteria€Ìà àà àfor€deviation€the€guidelines€provide€that€among€the€ð ðcases€Ìà àà àwhere€guidelines€are€neither€appropriate€nor€equitableðð€are€Ìà àà àthose€in€which€ð ðthe€net€income€of€the€obligor€exceeds€$6,250€Ìà àà àper€month.ðð€€In€the€present€case,€the€Juvenile€Court€calculated€Ìà àà àCharles€Mulleððs€net€monthly€income€to€be€$14,726.98,€a€figure€Ìà àà àwell€above€the€$6,250.00€figure€justifying€deviation€from€the€Ìà àà àguidelines.€€Yet€the€total€award€of€$3,093€ordered€by€the€trial€Ìà àà àjudge€is€exactly€21€percent€of€Mulleððs€monthly€income.€€à àÌà àÌà àà à€€€€Obviously,€to€treat€the€monthly€income€figure€of€$6,250.00€Ìà àà àas€a€cap€and€automatically€to€limit€the€award€to€21€percent€of€Ìà àà àthat€amount€for€a€child€whose€non„custodial€parent€makes€Ìà àà àover€$6,250.00€may€be€ð ðneither€appropriate€nor€equitable.ðð€€Ìà àà àSuch€an€automatic€limit€fails€to€take€into€consideration€the€Ìà àà àextremely€high€standard€of€living€of€a€parent€such€as€Charles€Ìà àà àMulle,€and€thus€fails€to€reflect€one€of€the€primary€goals€of€the€Ìà àà àguidelines,òò€i.e.óó,€to€allow€the€child€of€a€well„to„do€parent€to€Ìà àà àshare€in€that€very€high€standard€of€living.€€On€the€other€hand,€Ìà àà àòòautomatic€application€of€the€21€percent€multiplier€to€everyóó€Ìà àà àòòdollar€in€excess€of€$6,250.00€would€be€equally€unfairóó.ÌÌà àà à€€€€We€conclude€that€the€òòtrial€court€should€retain€the€discretionóó€Ìà àà àòòto€determineóó„„as€the€guidelines€provide,€ð ðon€a€case„by„case€Ìà àà àbasisðð„„€òòthe€appropriate€amount€of€child€support€to€be€paid€Ìà àà àwhen€an€obligorððs€net€income€exceeds€$6,250.00€per€monthóó,€Ìà àà àòòbalancing€both€the€childððs€need€and€the€parentsðð€meansóó.ÌÌà àà à€€€€The€guidelinesðð€very€latitude€reflects€this€need€for€anÌà àà à€exercise€of€discretion.€€Twenty„one€percent€of€an€Ìà àà àenormous€monthly€income€may€provide€far€more€money€Ìà àà àthan€most€reasonable,€wealthy€parents€would€allot€for€the€Ìà àà àsupport€of€one€child.€€However,€it€would€also€be€unfair€Ìà àà àto€require€a€custodial€parent€to€prove€a€specific€need€Ìà àà àbefore€the€court€will€increase€an€award€beyond€$1,312.00.€€Ìà àà àAt€such€high€income€levels,€parents€are€unlikely€to€be€able€Ìà àà àto€ð ðitemizeðð€the€cost€of€living.€€Moreover,€most€parents€Ìà àà àliving€within€their€means€would€not€be€able€to€present€lists€Ìà àà àof€expenditures€made€in€the€mere€anticipation€of€more€Ìà àà àchild€support.€€Until€the€guidelines€more€specifically€address€Ìà àà àsupport€awards€for€the€children€of€high„income€parents,€we€Ìà àà àare€content€to€rely€on€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courts€within€Ìà àà àthe€bounds€provided€them€by€those€guidelines.€€In€this€case,€Ìà àà àalthough€the€child€support€award€may€be€appropriate,€we€Ìà àà àthink€it€expedient€to€remand€this€case€to€the€Juvenile€Court,€Ìà àà àthus€providing€the€trial€judge€an€opportunity€to€reconsider€Ìà àà àhis€opinion€in€light€of€the€fact€that€he€is€not€limited€to€the€Ìà àà à$1,312.00€cap€imposed€by€the€Court€of€Appeals,€nor€is€he€Ìà àà àbound€to€award€21€percent€of€Charles€Mulleððs€full€net€income,€Ìà àà àbut€may€exercise€his€discretion€as€the€facts€warrant.ÌÌà àà à€€€€When€a€large€award€given€to€a€custodial€parent€with€a€muchÌà àà àlower€income€would€result€in€a€windfall€to€the€custodial€parent,€Ìà àà àa€trust€fund€helps€to€ensure€that€money€earmarked€for€the€child€Ìà àà àactually€inures€to€the€childððs€benefit.€€Thus,€the€trust€fund€is€Ìà àà àproperly€used€to€minimize€unintended€benefits€to€the€custodial€Ìà àà àparent.ÌÌà àà à€€€€In€light€of€the€guidelinesðð€explicit€provision€for€the€use€of€Ìà àà àtrusts€in€cases€involving€high„income€parents,€the€goals€Ìà àà àpromoted€by€the€use€of€a€trust€in€this€instance,€and€the€use€of€Ìà àà àa€trust€in€this€instance,€and€the€reasoned€support€of€other€state€Ìà àà àcourts€and€legislatures,€we€find€the€use€of€an€education€trust€in€Ìà àà àthis€case€to€be€proper.€€As€noted€in€Section€I,€however,€there€Ìà àà àremains€noted€in€Section€I,€however,€there€remains€the€question€Ìà àà àof€the€level€at€which€the€trust€should€be€funded€in€this€case.€€We€Ìà àà àtherefore€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals,€andÌà àà àremand€the€case€to€the€Juvenile€Court€for€calculation€of€an€awardÌà àà àin€accordance€with€this€opinion.€€(Emphasis€supplied)ÌÓÓÌà àIn€December,€1994,€the€Department€of€Human€Services€amended€Rule€1240„2„4„.04(3)€toÏread€as€follows:ÌÓÓà àà à€€€€(3)à àThe€court€òòmustóó€order€child€support€based€upon€Ìà àà àthe€appropriate€percentage€of€all€net€income€of€the€obligorÌà àà àas€defined€according€to€1240„2„4„.03€of€this€rule€but€Ìà àà àalternative€payment€arrangements€may€be€made€for€the€Ìà àà àaward€from€that€portion€of€net€income€which€exceeds€$6,250.€€Ìà àà àWhen€the€net€income€of€the€obligor€exceeds€$6,250€per€month,€Ìà àà àthe€court€òòmayóó€establish€educational€or€other€trust€funds€for€the€Ìà àà àbenefit€of€the€child(ren)€or€make€other€provisions€in€the€Ìà àà àchild(ren)ððs€best€interest;€however,€òòall€of€the€support€award€Ìà àà àamount€based€on€net€income€up€through€$6,250€must€be€paidÌà àà àto€the€custodial€parent.óóÌÌÌÓÓà àNothing€is€found€in€òòNash€v.€Malleóó€to€òòrequireóó€a€court€œto€require€a€parent€to€create€a€trustÏfund€to€provide€for€an€adult€child€out›€of€the€income€of€the€obligor€in€excess€of€$6,250€per€month.€ÏThe€language€of€that€opinion€is€permissive,€not€mandatory.€€The€holding€of€the€Supreme€CourtÏappears€to€be€that€the€trial€courts€have€the€discretion€to€allow€a€percentage€of€part€or€all€of€theÏexcess€of€$6,250€where€to€do€so€is€not€found€to€be€inequitable.ÌÌà àWhether€the€statutory€authority€to€promulgate€presumptive€guidelines€delegates€the€powerÏof€the€legislature€to€the€Department€of€Human€Services€to€œcompel›€the€courts€œto›€award€the€guidelineÏpercentages€of€income€above€$6,250€per€month€need€not€be€discussed€or€decided€in€this€appeal.ÌÌà àFor€purposes€of€this€appeal,€it€is€sufficient€to€hold€that,€by€statute,€the€courts€are€bound€toÏconsider€the€guidelines€and€to€follow€them€unless€their€strict€application€is€expressly€found€to€beÏinequitable€under€the€facts€of€the€case.ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case€the€child€support€exceeds€21%€of€$6,250€per€month.€€The€MotherÏinsists€that,€in€one€form€or€another,€it€be€increased€to€21%€of€the€total€net€income€of€the€Father.€ÏUnder€the€rule€of€òòNash€v.€Mulleóó€it€was€and€is€the€duty€of€the€Trial€Court€to€establish€that€level€ofÏsupport€which€will€provide€a€standard€of€living€commensurate€with€the€income€of€the€Father.€€IfÏthe€Mother€is€willing€to€and€actually€does€expend€all€support€received€in€providing€that€scale€ofÏliving€for€the€child,€then€this€is€the€proper€measure€of€child€support€(to€be€paid€by€the€œFather).€€On›Ïthe€other€hand,€it€would€be€inequitable€to€require€the€Father€to€pay€to€the€Mother€more€than€sheÍwould€actually€use€in€the€support€of€the€child,€thereby€realizing€a€windfall€which€òòNash€v.€MulleóóÏdisapproves.ÌÌà àThe€same€dangers€of€a€windfall€should€be€avoided€in€requiring€contributions€to€a€trustÏfund.€€A€parent€has€no€legal€duty€to€provide€an€endowment€or€inheritance€to€a€child€who€is€notÏdisabled.€€òòNash€v.€Mulleóó€recognizes€an€equitable€duty€of€a€parent€to€fund€his€or€her€professedÏinterest€in€the€education€or€training€in€accordance€with€the€financial€standing€of€the€parent,€butÏnothing€is€found€in€that€opinion€to€authorize€a€Trial€Court€to€require€the€accumulation€of€cash€to€beÏpaid€to€the€child€or€retained€by€the€obligee€parent€if€not€used€for€the€purposes€stated.ÌÌœ›œ›à àIn€keeping€with€the€foregoing,€the€issue€of€child€support€is€œremanded›€to€the€Trial€Court€forÏreconsideration€and€redetermination€œconsistent›€with€the€principles€discussed€herein.€€Until€suchÏredetermination€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€will€be€controlling.ÌÌà àSubject€to€such€remand€and€redetermination,€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed.€ÏCosts€of€this€appeal€are€adjudged€equally,€that€is€each€party€shall€pay€one€half.€€The€cause€isÏremanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€further€proceedings.ÌÌà àAffirmed€subject€to€redetermination.ÌÌà àREMANDED.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDà àÌà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÓÓÌÌCONCUR:ÌÓÓÌ_____________________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌ_____________________________________ÌÓÓBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÔ€Ô